This has also given greater prominence to questions about who Britain is trading with. International Trade Secretary Liam Fox has been accused of prioritising trade over human rights, visiting Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman, while Theresa May has stated that she aims for closer ties with Saudi Arabia. Much of this trade seems to revolve around the sale and distribution of weapons, and the latest deal with Turkey will see Britain develop fighter jets for the Turkish air force. The Turkish leader has presided over a deteriorating human rights situation since a failed coup last July, according to Amnesty International, and while the Prime Minister stressed that Turkey should “uphold its human rights obligations”, the statement seemed a weak response to criticism that May had “no particular plans to raise human rights concerns.”

Yemeni nationals protest against war in their country during a march in Moscow, Russia | Photograph Nickolay Vinokurov / Shutterstock

However, is there a case to be made that a post-Brexit Britain can be both a defender of human rights abroad and a global trade actor? The moral case for engagement with countries that have a poor human rights record has been made by advocates of neo-liberal economics, with China and Cuba cited as evidence in favour of engagement. In the case of the former, it is argued that trade and economic reforms have enhanced the human rights situation in the country, and that in the case of the latter, sanctions didn’t help promote human rights in Cuba, and often isolated the persecuted. However, to argue that human rights have improved due to trade and economic liberalisation in China seems a stretch given that the Chinese Community Party continues to curtail a range of fundamental human rights, including freedom of expression, association, assembly and religion.

There is also the consideration that post-Brexit Britain simply won’t have the necessary political capital to protect human rights at an international level. As a member of the world’s largest trading bloc, there was certainly more weight behind any cause Britain may have chosen to support. And, the worrying position already taken by the British government demonstrated by the defeat to the amendment designed to protect the residency rights of EU citizens undermines any attempts of the British government to protect human rights, given the disregard for the rights of those already living in the country.

It remains to be seen whether Theresa May’s government wants to pursue such policies. The current Prime Minister has an erratic record with regards to human rights, perhaps most controversially through her commitment to abolish the Human Rights Act and recently through her weak response to Trump’s travel ban. This is problematic as the entire human rights system rests upon being vocal when peers fail to live up to agreed standards as many of the treaties safeguarding these rights lack coercive measures should a state fail to adhere to their commitments.

Kurdish demonstrators protest against the Turkish government in Milan in February this year Photograph Tinxi / Shutterstock

There are many questions and negotiations to be faced in the coming two years, which include considerations about what kind of country Brexit Britain will be. While early signs indicate that Britain doesn’t seem to be interested in pursuing human rights obligations either domestically or abroad, the current Government would be well advised to approach Brexit in a collaborative manner that heeds the warnings and work of civil society.